Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology
The Altoona College of The Pennsylvania State University

Procedures for implementing the University’s policy on promotion and tenure are described in the Administrative Guidelines for AC23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations. Specific procedures for the Altoona College are described in Promotion and Tenure Review Procedures of the Altoona College, The Pennsylvania State University. The following further specifies procedures for the division level of review in the Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology of the Altoona College of the Pennsylvania State University, but does not supersede University-wide guidelines or Altoona College guidelines. Much of what follows repeats general University and Altoona College guidelines as the context for describing Division procedures, but Division faculty members should inform themselves about all three documents.

Preparation for the Review Process

Frequency of tenure reviews. All provisional faculty must be reviewed according to University policy during the second, fourth, and sixth years following entry to a tenure-eligible position. Special reviews for the third or fifth year may be recommended by any review level during a second- or fourth-year review and subsequently initiated at the discretion of the chancellor. Decisions prior to the sixth-year review end with the chancellor, whereas sixth-year reviews proceed next to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Promotion reviews. A faculty member will be reviewed for promotion only after being nominated by an appropriate academic administrator (division head, department head, or dean) of the University, or by the candidate’s division or department peer review committee after consultation with the appropriate academic administrator.

Preparation of the dossier. For all Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology faculty members seeking tenure and/or promotion, regardless of whether they retain or seek tenure in the Altoona College or in a college at the University Park Campus, the Division Head has the responsibility for preparing, in consultation with the candidate, the dossier documenting the candidate’s teaching effectiveness, research and creative accomplishments, and service. Candidates shall assist in supplying relevant information for their dossiers. There is a shared responsibility between the faculty member and the administrator for the timely preparation of the dossier, and the submission deadline for factual changes to the initial dossier is February 1. The narrative statement by each candidate should not exceed 2000 words. In fact, once tenure decisions are made for all candidates University-wide whose probationary period includes calendar year 2020, this limit will be lowered to 1600 words. It is ultimately the responsibility of the appropriate chancellor to ensure that each dossier follows the proper format and is accurate and complete.

Evaluation of teaching effectiveness shall be based on both student and peer rating information about the quality of the teaching. Student ratings shall be obtained from the Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTE) for courses delivered prior to Fall 2023 and the Student Educational Experience Questionnaire (SEEQ) thereafter in accordance with the University Administrative Guidelines for AC-23. The Division Head, in consultation with the candidate, will supplement this survey by other forms of student evaluation such as student comments on course evaluation questionnaires and letters solicited by the Division Head from former students (see Appendix, Section 2). One alternative assessment documenting teaching effectiveness shall be included for each academic year, beginning with 2020-2021. For promotion and tenure reviews, the peer evaluation shall be performed by the members of the candidate’s Peer Review of Teaching committee, including those appointed by the Division Head to ensure appropriate disciplinary representation, as described in the Appendix.

Evidence of research and creative accomplishments will be provided through information about these activities from the candidate and through external letters of assessment. For all promotion and final (normally the sixth-year) tenure reviews for candidates holding or seeking tenure in the Altoona College, the Division Head, in consultation with appropriate department and/or division heads at other Penn State locations, will submit four names of possible external reviewers to the Chancellor of the Altoona College, and the Division Head will ask the candidate to submit four names of possible external reviewers to the Chancellor. The Chancellor will review these submissions for appropriateness, select six external reviewers from them, and solicit letters from these six external reviewers. Additional reviewers may be solicited at the discretion of the chancellor. Dossiers must include a minimum of four letters from individuals of a rank higher than that of the candidate and in a position to make informed judgments about the candidate’s work, especially, but not limited to, the candidate’s research and creative accomplishments. In addition, at the request of the candidate or the division peer review committee, the Division Head, in consultation with the Chancellor, shall solicit written evaluations, to be placed in the non-confidential section of the dossier, of the candidate’s research and creative accomplishments from expert peers in the candidate’s discipline from within the University.

For all promotion and sixth year tenure reviews for candidates retaining or seeking tenure in a department and college at the University Park Campus, the dean of the candidate’s tenure college will obtain the external letters of review following that college’s procedures.

The Division Level of Review for Faculty Holding or Seeking Tenure in the Altoona College

For Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology faculty members holding or seeking tenure in the Altoona College, the first-level review for tenure and/or promotion takes place in the Division. The Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology Promotion and Tenure Policy outlines the criteria, expectations, and standards for tenure and promotion by which candidates will be evaluated. The Division Promotion and Tenure Peer Review Committees will conduct promotion and tenure reviews for faculty in the Division based on the dossiers prepared by the candidates’ division heads.

(For Division faculty members retaining or seeking tenure in a University Park College, the first-level review for tenure and/or promotion is conducted by the Altoona College Promotion and Tenure Review Committees and by the Chancellor of the Altoona College. Candidates should refer to the Promotion and Tenure Review Policy of the Altoona College for criteria, expectations, and standards and to the Promotion and Tenure Review Procedures of the Altoona College for procedures. Such candidates should also familiarize themselves with the criteria and procedures of the University Park department and college where they retain or seek tenure.)

Division Promotion and Tenure Peer Review Committees

Groups and Disciplines

The division shall be divided into four groups, each containing multiple disciplines, as listed alphabetically below:

  • The Engineering and Information Sciences Group (ES)
    • Electrical Engineering Discipline (EE)
    • Mechanical Engineering Discipline (ME)
    • Information and Computer Science Discipline (ICS)
    • Rail and Civil Engineering Discipline (RCE)
  • The Life Sciences Group (LS)
    • Biochemistry and Microbiology Discipline (BC)
    • Biology Discipline (BIO)
  • The Mathematics and Statistics Group (MS)
    • Mathematics Discipline (MATH)
    • Statistics Discipline (STAT)
  • The Physical Sciences Group (PS)
    • Chemistry Discipline (CHEM)
    • Geography Discipline (GEOG)
    • Geoscience Discipline (GEOS)
    • Physics Discipline (PHYS)

Each faculty member takes on a discipline when appointed, and changes are possible but require written dispensation from the Chancellor.

Each group will have a promotion and tenure committee. In accordance with the rules below, the tenure-line faculty of the division will elect a core representative from each group, and then the tenure-line faculty within each group shall elect disciplinary and at-large representatives as required to review the candidates scheduled to come under review. Core representatives shall also represent their groups on the committees of other groups in the manner described below.

Eligibility for serving on the committees. Division promotion and tenure peer reviews shall be conducted by faculty members in the Division whenever possible. Committee members must be tenured either in the Altoona College or in another college within Penn State. No faculty member may serve on more than one level of review of any given candidate during a particular review cycle, and faculty members on leave of absence, including sabbatical leave, are prohibited from participating in promotion and tenure committees.

Size and composition of the committees. The group committees shall be formed as follows (with the fourth core member serving if another core member is recused):

  • ES Committee
    • Chair: ES Core Representative
    • PS Core Representative
    • LS Core Representative
    • At least two non-core representatives from the ES Group
  • LS Committee
    • Chair: LS Core Representative
    • MS Core Representative
    • PS Core Representative
    • Two non-core representatives from the LS Group
  • MS Committee
    • Chair: MS Core Representative
    • PS Core Representative
    • ES Core Representative
    • At least two non-core representatives from the MS Group
  • PS Committee
    • Chair: PS Core Representative
    • MS Core Representative
    • ES Core Representative
    • At least two non-core representatives from the PS Group

Candidates shall be reviewed by panels of five representatives from their group committee. The rules below prescribe the election of sufficient non-core members to provide appropriate disciplinary representation for the review of each candidate. Under most circumstances, each group committee shall have only five members.

When groups with four disciplines have candidates simultaneously under review from three or all four disciplines, it may be necessary to elect up to three disciplinary representatives, bringing the committee total to six. In this unusual circumstance, the Group’s committee is further divided into panels of five based upon the discipline of the candidate under review as listed in Appendix B.

Core Representatives. From each group the tenure-line faculty of the entire Division shall elect a Core Representative, who shall chair the committee reviewing candidates from that group. The Core Representative shall serve for a term of two years. (The Core Representatives also serve as Discipline Representatives for their own disciplines, see below).

Each Core Representative should be of higher rank than candidates due to be reviewed during this term. They are likely to be among the highest-ranking representatives on a given committee, and because they serve as Chair, they should have good knowledge of policy and procedure surrounding the tenure process.

Discipline Representatives. Each group shall elect one Discipline Representative from each of its disciplines with candidates due to come under review. The Core Representatives also serve as Discipline Representatives for candidates in their own disciplines. Discipline Representatives who are not Core Representatives shall serve for a term of one year. Discipline Representatives are responsible for advising the committee on matters that require domain-specific knowledge.

At Large Representatives. At large representatives are elected as needed to ensure that a Group’s committee has at least five members eligible to vote on each candidate, once all Discipline Representatives have been elected for that Group. At Large Representatives shall serve for a term of one year.

Specially Appointed Members. In special cases, when these elections fail to secure a committee of five representatives that also includes a Discipline Representative for each candidate under review within the group, a Specially Appointed Committee Member may be added using the procedures described below. The term for Specially Appointed Members shall be one year, and they will only vote on (hence be involved in discussions concerning) candidates they were specifically appointed to consider.

Procedure for Electing Representatives

Step 1: Establishing the core representatives. For each of those Groups for which there is no continuing Core Representative there will be a ballot of all tenure-line faculty in the division to elect a core member from the Group. The term of service for elected core members shall be two years. Elected core members should hold rank higher than that of all the candidates under review for the core member’s term of service.

The Division Head shall construct a ballot by soliciting all tenured and tenure-eligible faculty in the Division to nominate core representatives. From those nominations, the ballot shall list all eligible representatives by their unique Group (ES, LS, PS, and MS) and their unique discipline will also be listed.

The Division Head will then conduct a secret ballot. All tenured and tenure-eligible faculty in the Division except for the Division Head are eligible to vote. Each faculty member who is eligible to vote may vote for as few or as many nominees in each Group as they want. The nominee in each Group who receives the greatest number of votes will be the core member from that Group. The Division Head shall resolve ties by a tie-break election. If a tie-break election results in a second tie, then the Division Head will cast the deciding vote.

Step 2: Selecting disciplinary representatives. After the core representatives are elected, there will be separate elections within each Group to elect disciplinary representatives. A Disciplinary Representative shall be elected only if there is a candidate from that discipline under review and if the Core Representative is not a member of the same discipline. The Core Representatives also serve as Disciplinary Representatives for their own disciplines.

The Division Head shall construct a ballot by soliciting all tenured and tenure-eligible faculty from within the Group to nominate the needed disciplinary representatives from their Group only. From those nominations, the ballot shall list all eligible representatives by their discipline. Each candidate representative must be listed in one and only one discipline.

The Division Head will then conduct a secret ballot. Except for the Division Head, all tenured and tenure-eligible faculty in the Group are eligible to vote. Faculty may not vote on disciplinary representatives outside of their own Group. Each faculty member who is eligible to vote may vote for as few or as many nominees in each discipline as they want. The nominee in each discipline who receives the greatest number of votes will be the disciplinary representative on the Group’s promotion and tenure committee. The Division Head shall resolve a tie by a tie-break election. If a tie-break election results in a second tie, then the Division Head will cast the deciding vote.

If an election fails to secure a member from a discipline that has a candidate under review, then the Division Head will appoint a disciplinary representative (possibly from other units within the University, subject to the approval of the Provost) to that Group’s promotion and tenure committee. Disciplinary representatives appointed in this way shall only cast a vote on candidates in the discipline they were appointed to represent. They shall not vote on (or be involved in discussing) candidates of other disciplines.

Step 3: Electing at-large representatives within a Group. After the appropriate Disciplinary Representatives are elected or appointed, Groups with candidates under review shall elect a number of At-Large Representatives to ensure that the Group has two non-core representatives eligible to vote on each candidate under review (see Appendix if more than two, as only two will vote on, and so discuss, each candidate). If these conditions are already met, no at-large elections are held.

The Division Head shall construct a ballot by soliciting all tenured and tenure-eligible faculty from within the Group to nominate at-large representatives from their Group only. From those nominations, the ballot shall list all eligible representatives without regard to their discipline. The ballot shall only indicate the number of at-large representatives being elected.

The Division Head will then conduct a secret ballot. All tenured and tenure-eligible faculty in the Group except for the Division Head are eligible to vote. Each faculty member who is eligible to vote may vote for as few or as many nominees as they want. The nominees with the most votes will be at-large members on the Group’s promotion and tenure committee. The Division Head shall resolve a tie by a tie-break election. If a tie-break election results in a second tie, then the Division Head will cast the deciding vote.

Step 4: Electing at-large representatives from outside a Group. If steps 1-3 result in fewer than two non-core representatives in a group eligible to vote on each candidate under review, there will be an election for at-large members from the Division to bring the number of non-core Group representatives to two. Out-of-group at-large elections are not held otherwise, and they are not held in groups with no candidates under review.

The Division Head shall construct a ballot by soliciting all tenured and tenure-eligible faculty within the Group to nominate at-large representatives from the entire Division. From those nominations, the ballot shall list all eligible representatives and their discipline. The ballot shall clearly indicate that the election is for out-of-group at-large representatives, the group in which the representatives will serve, and the number of representatives being elected.

The Division Head will then conduct a secret ballot. All tenured and tenure-eligible faculty in the Group except for the Division Head are eligible to vote. Each faculty member who is eligible to vote may vote for as few or as many nominees as they want. The nominees with the most votes will be at-large members on the Group’s promotion and tenure committee. The Division Head shall resolve a tie by a tie-break election. If a tie-break election results in a second tie, then the Division Head will cast the deciding vote.

Additional rule for when there is only one nominee for a position. If any ballot for any representative contains only one nominee for a particular position, then that nominee must receive a 25% approval vote of the people eligible to vote in order to be elected. The vote fails otherwise.

Step 5: Appointment of special members to the committee by the Division Head. If the steps 1-4 fail to elect two non-core representatives eligible to vote for each candidate under review (see Appendix B if there are more than two), the Division Head shall inform the faculty and appoint up to two additional eligible senior faculty (possibly from other units within the University, subject to the approval of the Provost).

Step 6: Conclusion of the election. The Division Head must complete the election and appointment of Committee members and report the results to the Division and to the Dean of the Altoona College by the end of March each Spring Semester.

Evaluation of the dossier by the committees. The Division Head will make completed dossiers available to the committees and will call the initial meeting of each committee to review policies and procedures. The Division Head shall consult with the committees to ensure that all members are well informed about each candidate’s dossier and about the criteria and policies of the Division, the Altoona College, and the University. The Division Head shall serve as a resource person to the committees; however, the Division Head and the committees shall render independent judgments of the candidates being reviewed. The Division Head, along with any committee member with a conflict of interest in this particular case, shall not be present during peer review discussions or when votes are being taken.

The review process for tenure and promotion is concerned with the academic and professional merits of particular candidates, judged in reference to all alternative candidates, including prospective faculty members. The peer review at the Division level will focus on professional and scholarly judgments of the individual’s academic work within the assigned discipline. In evaluating a candidate, the committee members should seek the views of senior members of the candidate’s Group. Moreover, the committee members may also seek out evaluations by expert peers at other institutions, as those evaluations may provide essential, helpful information.

After due deliberation and a vote, the committee will submit to the Division Head a letter of evaluation for each candidate addressing each criterion based on the evidence in the dossier. In particular, the Administrative Guidelines for AC23 require the committees to make a judgment of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness based on both peer and student reviews in terms of the following classification: excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. When there is dissenting opinion among the voting committee members, the reasons for the dissent must be addressed in the letter. The letter must list the voting committee members and must report the vote count of the committee. The chairs of the committees must sign the letters. Promotion and tenure committee members should not retain any personal notes about promotion and tenure cases once the work of the committee has concluded.

Evaluation of the dossier by the Division Head. After receiving the letter of evaluation of the Division Promotion and Tenure Peer Review Committee and placing it in the candidate’s dossier, the Division Head shall prepare a letter of evaluation also addressing each criterion based on the evidence in the dossier and place it in the dossier. The Division Head shall submit the dossier to the Chancellor of the Altoona College for review by the Altoona College Promotion and Tenure Peer Review Committee. In the event that the peer review committee does not recommend promotion to Professor for a given candidate, and the division head agrees, the head should consult with the Chancellor before discussing with the candidate the advisability of withdrawing the dossier.

Consultation in the review process. In accordance with University guidelines for AC 23, consultation must occur when the Division Head’s recommendation differs from that of the Division Promotion and Tenure Peer Review Committee. Consultation should be initiated after the Committee review has been completed and its recommendation has been made in writing.

Appendix A: Peer Review of Teaching Procedures

These procedures govern the formation and responsibilities of peer review committees within The Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology (or simply The Division) to review the teaching performance of an individual faculty member as a part of their regular performance review and as a part of promotion or tenure reviews.

Responsibilities of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee

Peer review of teaching is a process in which an individual’s disciplinary peers evaluate a full range of teaching activities including, but not limited to, the development of course materials, class assignments, grading, student research, and student mentoring. A peer review committee is tasked with the review of a single faculty member.

For promotion-related reviews, each member of the peer review of teaching committee will observe at least one class period and one lab period (if applicable) taught by the faculty member under review, and especially for those with asynchronous teaching assignments, every effort should be made to plan these visits so a committee member observes each different type of class taught. In addition, committee members will review course materials such as class syllabi, examples of graded student work, and whatever additional information (including possibly a teaching portfolio) the faculty member makes available to the committee. The peer review of teaching committee will write one letter signed by all members of the committee. In the event of disagreement within the committee, the letter will include separate majority and minority opinions.

For promotion-related reviews, the peer review of teaching committee will also write a separate Assessment of Student Feedback letter. Student comments will be collected using the procedures outlined in Section 5. Every effort should be made to have student comments available to the committee prior to their observations of the candidate.

For post-promotion reviews, at least one committee member will observe at least one class period and one lab period (if applicable) taught by the faculty member under review. All committee members will review course materials and additional information as discussed above, and will provide evaluative comments to the division head in writing.

Formation of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee for Promotion-Related Reviews

Nomination of Committee Members

For promotion-related reviews, the division head will ask each faculty member under review for a list of at least five peers whom the faculty member considers acceptable for the formation of a peer review of teaching committee that will review that faculty member. The list of acceptable faculty members can include any full-time Penn State Altoona faculty members. However, the list should include faculty whose teaching assignment is similar to that of the faculty member under review, and if the faculty member under review teaches a significant number of credits/courses in a certain discipline, then at least one faculty member familiar with that discipline should be included on the list whenever possible.

If the faculty member under review would like to include one member of the committee who is not a member of the Division, then the faculty member can nominate at most two such options, and the division head may choose at most one of those when forming the three-person committee. In these cases, it is highly recommended that the remaining two members be in closely related disciplines whenever possible.

The committee will also include one member of the divisional Promotion and Tenure Committee that will serve on the P&T Committee that evaluates the candidate.

Selection of the Committee

The division head will form a three-person peer review of teaching committee from people on the list supplied by the faculty member under review. Every effort should be made to include a committee member familiar with each discipline where the faculty member under review teaches a significant number of credits/courses. If the division head is unable to form a three-person committee as described above based on this list, then the division head will ask the faculty member under review to extend the list, or if no extension is provided, will appoint additional members to the committee as necessary.

It is acceptable for peer review committee members to serve on multiple peer review committees simultaneously. Faculty members may not self-review but are free to serve on other peer review committees while under review.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee representative will, by default, be the core member of the committee from the same group as the candidate unless there is a conflict of interest, in which case, the Division Head will select another P&T Committee member for the role. The P&T Committee member on the Peer Review Committee will only aid in the Assessment of Student Feedback report and will review the report and provide feedback to the rest of the committee.

Selection of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee for Extended or Post-Promotion Reviews

Nomination of Committee Members

For post-promotion reviews, the division head will ask each faculty member under review for a list of at least five peers whom the faculty member considers acceptable to serve on a peer review of teaching committee for that faculty member. The list of acceptable faculty can include any full-time faculty in the Division and/or full-time Penn State faculty from outside the Division/College who teach courses similar to those that the faculty member under review teaches. A member from the divisional promotion and tenure committee is not required for this peer review of teaching committee.

Selection of the Committee

The division head will choose a peer review of teaching committee from the list supplied by the faculty member under review. Every effort should be made to include a committee member familiar with each discipline where the faculty member under review teaches a significant number of credits/courses. If the division head is unable to form a three-person committee as described above based on this list, then the division head will ask the faculty member under review to extend the list, or if no extension is provided, will appoint additional members to the committee as necessary.

It is acceptable for peer reviewers to participate in multiple peer reviews simultaneously. Faculty members may not self-review but are free to serve as peer reviewers for others while under review.

The teaching evaluation committee for extended or post-promotion reviews is responsible for a peer-review of teaching evaluation letter. The committee is not required to provide an Assessment of Student Feedback report.

Additional Reviews of Teaching Effectiveness

In consultation with the candidate, the division head may optionally arrange for additional evaluators to observe and provide written assessments of a candidate's teaching effectiveness. These written reviews will be submitted to the division head separately from the peer review committee’s letter. If solicited as part of a tenure review process, they will be included in the candidate’s dossier separately from the committee’s letter.

Collection and Assessment of Student Feedback

Student comments must be collected using number 1 below and can be supplemented with number 2 and/or 3.

  1. Written student comments collected through regular evaluations.
    Regular written evaluations are collected from students through the SEEQ form, except for courses delivered prior to fall 2023, which used the SRTE form. The committee is to write a report of no more than 750 words describing insights about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness derived from quantitative and qualitative student feedback from SEEQ/SRTE responses. As applicable, reviewers should incorporate attention to the elements of teaching: effective course design, effective instruction, inclusive and ethical pedagogy, and reflective and evolving practice. All reviewers must sign the final report, and the report must be addressed to and submitted to the division head. This report includes only the assessment of SEEQ/SRTEs. The assessment of 2 and 3 below would require a separate report.
  2. Candidates can use division-approved forms for written student comments (see Section 7). Any supplementary forms with written student comments will be collected separately from the regular evaluation forms and will be delivered to the office of the division head. Supplemental forms will be scanned electronically and forwarded to the faculty member’s peer review of teaching committee.
  3. Letters from students who have completed a course taught by the faculty member.
    At the request of the faculty member under review, the division head will solicit letters from a random sample of students who have completed courses taught by the faculty member during the previous two years. To ensure that student letters reflect the courses in their entirety, students who dropped, withdrew, or received a failing grade without completing the entire course may not be solicited for a letter. The number of students solicited should be sufficient to ensure a diverse sampling. The student letters will be forwarded to the faculty member's peer review of teaching committee together with the grades of the students who wrote the letters.

Timeline for Peer Review of Teaching Effectiveness

Spring Review (e.g., 4th year or 6th year tenure reviews)

Before the end of the 8th week of the fall semester the division head will solicit the names of those peers whom the faculty member considers acceptable for the peer review committee. At this time, the division head will also ask the faculty member to choose the procedure for collecting student comments.

The division head will form the peer review committee by the end of the 10th week of the fall semester. The committee will complete its work and submit its evaluation letter within 4 weeks of the end of the spring semester. The Assessment of Student Feedback report is due by the end of the third week of the fall semester.

Fall Review (e.g., 2nd year tenure, non-tenure line faculty reviews)

Before the end of the 8th week of the previous spring semester the division head will solicit the names of those peers whom the faculty member considers acceptable for the peer review committee. At this time, the division head will also ask the faculty member to choose the procedure for collecting student comments.

The division head will form the peer review committee by the end of the 10th week of the spring semester. The committee will complete its work and submit its evaluation letter and Assessment of Student Feedback report within 4 weeks of the end of the fall semester.

Division-Approved Forms for Collecting Student Comments

The faculty member under review should leave before students fill out the forms, and a student or colleague should deliver the forms directly to the division office. The first example below has been approved along with the ability of candidates to include additional questions, as in the second.

Student Evaluation of Learning Experience
Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology

  • Professor
  • Course/s
    • Course
    • Semester

In answering the questions below, please discuss specific aspects of the course with this professor, such as the syllabus, assignments, teaching style, classroom environment, etc. Feel free to use the back of this sheet.

  1. Why did you take this course? (e.g. required for major, elective, etc.)
  2. What was effective about the way the course was taught?
  3. What was not effective about the way the course was taught?
  4. Include any additional comments. (You may use the back of this sheet if necessary.)

Student Evaluation of Learning Experience
Division of Engineering, Science, and Technology

  • Professor
  • Course/s
    • Course
    • Semester

In answering the questions below, please discuss specific aspects of the course with this professor, such as the syllabus, assignments, teaching style, classroom environment, etc. Feel free to use the back of this sheet.

  1. Why did you take this course? (e.g. required for major, elective, etc.)
  2. What was effective about the way the course was taught?
  3. What was not effective about the way the course was taught?
  4. [Additional questions may be inserted by the faculty member here.]
  5. Include any additional comments. (You may use the back of this sheet if necessary.)

Appendix B: Panel Assignments

When a group with four disciplines is required to elect three disciplinary representatives, the resulting six-member committee shall be further sub-divided into five member panels by the discipline of the candidates under review. The three core representatives shall serve on all panels. Each panel shall be further populated by the remaining disciplinary representatives using the preference orders in the tables below. If a higher preference representative is already fulfilled by the Group’s Core Representative, the panel shall be populated by the next preferred representative until the panel has five representatives. This is to ensure each panel has only five representatives with the disciplinary representation that is as appropriate to each candidate as is practical.

TABLE B.1: ORDER OF PREFERENCE FOR FORMING PANELS
Candidate1st2nd3rd4th
EE CandidateEEICSMERCE
ME CandidateMERCSEEICST
ICS CandidateICSEERCEME
RCE CandidateRCEMEICSEE
TABLE B.2: ORDER OF PREFERENCE FOR FORMING PANELS TO REVIEW CANDIDATES IN THE PS GROUP
Candidate1st2nd3rd4th
CHEM CandidateCHEMPHYSGEOGGEOS
GEOG CandidateGEOGGEOSPHYSCHEM
GEOS CandidateGEOSGEOGCHEMPHYS
PHYS CandidatePHYSCHEMGEOSGEOG

Adopted: 9/26/25